The UN Security Council on Monday passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, the immediate and unconditional release of hostages and “the urgent need to expand the flow” of aid into Gaza. There were 14 votes in favour with the United States abstaining.
The Council then adopted the resolution 2728 (2024) (to be issued as document S/RES/2728(2024)) by a vote of 14 in favour to none against, with one abstention (United States). By its terms, it demanded an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire. It also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs.
By other terms, the Council emphasized the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance and reinforce the protection of civilians in Gaza. It also demanded the lifting of all barriers to humanitarian assistance at scale, in line with international humanitarian law as well as Council resolutions 2712 (2023) and 2720 (2023)…
Now that this Council has finally called for a ceasefire, all forces should ensure it is enforced, he asserted, adding: “This must be a turning point, this must lead to saving lives on the ground, this must signal an end of these atrocities against the Palestinians — a nation is being murdered, […] disposed [and] displaced for decades now — but never at this scale since the Nakba, never this openly”. However, he said that even if the ceasefire happened now and the siege was lifted, “it would take generations to deal with the trauma and devastation”.
This is a pretty big shift for the US, and it means the pressure is finally starting to really register with Biden. If the “uncommited” results in the Michigan primary were enough to get his attention, recent polling that puts him 8 points behind Trump likely changed the debate for the foreseeable future.
Biden is playing diplomatic chess. Netanyahu warned the US before the vote that Israel would not participate in a meeting if the US didn’t use its veto. So, now the US didn’t. BTW, Hamas launched rockets at Ashdod right before the Security Council voted confirming its status as an equal fighting party in the war before a ceasefire.
Certainly not, but he definitely cares about the 100,000 people that voted uncommitted in Michigan and the littany of polls that show a majority of Democratic and young voters not supporting current US foreign policy.
It’s not about people changing their minds. Centrists don’t really exist. It’s about motivating people to actually fucking vote. When people vote, Dems win. When Dems are unpopular, people don’t vote and Rs win because they vote no matter what.
If you can write out the math where I, voting 3rd party, add to Trump’s total, I will completely concede to your point and vote for the genocidal old man.
The uncommitted movement got 100K votes Michigan, and within days the Biden administration started a complete 180 on Israel. It’s more than a few Twitter users and he clearly cares very deeply.
Of course the sentence is relevant. I’m not sure why I should bother writing a reply to you when you apparently stop reading them after the first word. Have a good day.
It’s not selective reading. If I make a statement and you say “No” that mea s you’re refuting that statement.
Then their second sentence had nothing to do with wether they think these politics are simple or not, hence why I didn’t quit it.
The OP is just using bad faith arguments to distracts from that. Which is why they don’t even attempt to deny it and just criticise the fact I didn’t quote their entire comment instead of responding.
No, you didn’t read it properly, and I’d say you’re arguing in bad faith or you just cannot read properly as everyone else seems to have done just fine. Ignoring so much of their comment then their intention afterwards makes you look silly. You are wrong, your understanding is wrong.
Then why can’t the OP nor you/ anyone else actually give an explanation, or even so much as give a response to an INCREDIBLY simple question. Of “do you think international diplomacy is that simple?”
Again. The conversation went
Me: diplomacy isn’t that simple
SB: No. Shouting genocide Joe worked.
The first sentence is them denying my point that diplomacy isn’t simple. The second sentence is tangential to that point. And does nothing to explain why they think diplomacy isn’t actually simple. He’ll I’m not even denying their se and point. Shouting genocide Joe did put pressure on Biden that did shape foreign policy in some small way. But again, its not relevant to the point I was making, so didn’t quote it.
Which is why the other commenter is acting in bad faith when they completely ignore my point because I didn’t quote their tangential point in my second comment.
I thought this would be fairly obvious to anyone with literacy skills but apparently I need to wrote whole paragraphs to explain what someone replying “no” means.
The best time to abstain would have been decades ago, but the second-best time is now. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good; this was a good choice.
Edit: The downvotes are hard to interpret. Do people think the US abstaining (and thus allowing the resolution to pass) was not a good choice?
To be absolutely clear for those who for some reason still aren't understanding it at this point, choosing to abstain from voting on this resolution was the same as voting to support it. The US could have blocked this resolution and instead decided "no, we'll let this one through." Given that they could have blocked it but made a conscious decision not to block it, knowing that by not blocking it the resolution would pass, that was a decision in favor of this resolution.
Do you understand the political mess involved in the ties between USA and Israel? There’s multiple factions whose support is conditional on WH supporting Israel. Biden isn’t just negotiating with Netanyahu, he’s negotiating with the rest of his own party and donors. He wouldn’t be able to vote for in UN without consequences, like political factions and donors moving to R instead.
All appeared to have been beaten - videos of brutal interrogation sessions were apparently leaked by Russian security forces, and reports suggest at least one had suffered electric shocks.
…
The men the court identified as Mirzoyev and Rachabalizoda had black eyes and the latter’s ear was heavily bandaged - reportedly from it being partially severed during his arrest.
Mirzoyev also appeared to have a torn plastic bag wrapped around his neck.
The face of the man identified as Fariduni was badly swollen, while the man named as Fayzov appeared to lose consciousness as he was brought into court in a wheelchair wearing a thin hospital gown.
He appeared to have an eye missing, according to the Reuters news agency.
…
A court statement on the Telegram messaging service said Mirzoyev had “admitted his guilt in full”, while Rachabalizoda also “admitted guilt”.
Anyone will admit guilt if you do that to them. Is there any actual evidence that these men were the ones who attacked the concert hall?
Oh well I guess that’s definitive evidence then. Clothing is a unique unreplicatable item, everyone knows that.
Russia didn’t even believe these attacks were going to take place, I refuse to believe that they’re able to catch the culprits this quickly, there’s a level of organization and skill that they’ve never previously demonstrated.
I see what you mean, but settlers aren't really extremists in Israel. Over there "All of Judea belongs to us, the chosen people, so we have the right to chase out and murder the subhuman Arabs" is a pretty common idea.
And if you’re an American there’s no possibility your tax dollars help the victims or stop funding the perpetrators.
Because both of our only two options get a shit ton of political donations from Israel via AIPAC.
The few honest politicians left have spent literal decades trying to make AIPAC register as a foreign agent, but the people who decide that all take AIPAC money.
We investigated trump for Russia connections, but Israel bought both sides, so no one wants investigations into this
Yeah we send missiles because our alliance is based on Israel’s posture with Iran and has fuck all to do with Gaza. Israel could carpet bomb all of Gaza and the West Bank a dozen times over before ending our alliance affected Israel’s posture with Gaza. So, as to Gaza, dropping our support is dropping our leverage. Sorry this doesn’t fit your wildly out of touch and frankly childish narrative.
You’re not wrong about the motivations, but the ends should never justify the means. America’s unwavering support of Israel has led to a huge amount of blowback over the past 70 years
Just ask Daniella Weiss, 78, the grandmother of Israel’s settler movement, who says she already has a list of 500 families ready to move to Gaza immediately.
Mrs Weiss proudly shows me a map of the West Bank with pink dots indicating Jewish settlements.
We meet Daniella at her home in the West Bank settlement of Kedumim, where red-roofed houses are spread over hilltops and valleys.
A few days later, Daniella Weiss is selling the idea of a return to Gaza over cake and popcorn at a small gathering, hosted by another settler in their living room.
In the shade of a sprawling tree, Yehuda Shimon is playing with his two young sons, who are in hammocks, hanging from the branches.
Outposts like his are multiplying in the West Bank, along with larger settlements, fragmenting Palestinian territory and stoking tension.
The original article contains 1,206 words, the summary contains 140 words. Saved 88%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
bbc.co.uk
Hot